206 Cal. App. 4th 1487
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) designates ARB to regulate GHGs and set milestones, including a scoping plan by 2009 and regulations by 2011–2012.
- ARB developed the Climate Change Scoping Plan with 18 emission-reduction categories and a mix of direct, market-based, and incentive measures intended to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020.
- The plan relied on a cap-and-trade program linked regionally, along with complementary measures, to maximize cost-effective reductions.
- AIR petitioned for a writ of mandate asserting noncompliance with AB 32 and CEQA by ARB’s scoping plan and its FED (CEQA document).
- Trial court ruled ARB complied with AB 32 but found deficiencies in CEQA analysis of alternatives to cap-and-trade; ARB supplemented the FED; writ discharged; the case proceeded on AIR’s cross-appeal.
- The appellate court affirmed ARB’s compliance with AB 32, finding the plan within statutory authority and not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the scoping plan achieves maximum feasible and cost-effective reductions by 2020 | AIR argues plan limits reductions to minimum under §38550, not §38561 | ARB contends plan targets 2020 as a step toward 2050 goals and remains within discretion | Affirmed: plan within statute and reasonably feasible/cost-effective |
| Whether ARB relied on a standard cost-effectiveness criterion | AIR says cost-effectiveness criteria were not properly defined | Statute permits cost per ton as metric; no rigid per-measure criteria required | Affirmed: Board’s Cost of a Bundle approach and methodology permissible |
| Whether ARB adequately analyzed direct controls in agriculture/industry and avoided premature mandates | AIR contends insufficient mandatory measures, especially in agriculture | Board considered voluntary measures now, with five-year reassessment, due to scientific uncertainty | Affirmed: plan’s agricultural measures reasonably analyzed; not mandated where uncertain |
| Whether health/public health and environmental justice analyses were adequate | AIR asserts insufficient impact comparisons for each measure | §38561(d) requires evaluating plan-wide costs/benefits, with further analysis during regulation adoption | Affirmed: plan-wide evaluation proper; targeted local analyses noted but not required per statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrancho v. California Air Resources Board, 111 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2003) (deferential review for quasi-legislative action; authority within statutory mandate)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (scope of review for quasi-legislative rules; independent judgment standard)
- San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City and County of San Francisco, 38 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2006) (deferential review when agency has broad discretion)
- Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995) (limits of judicial review of agency action under broad discretion)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2007) (standard of review de novo for mandamus challenges to agency action)